1981 (9) TMI 309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein, who is a resident in India, had gone to Singapore in Feb. 1959 and stayed there till Jan. 1960 and during his stay at Singapore he had sold a shop for 40,000.00 Malasian dollars but repatriated only a sum of Rs. 5000 equivalent to 321310 Malasian dollars. As regards non-repatriation of the balance amount of the sale proceeds by the appellant, proceedings were initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against the appellant for violation of Section 5(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant resisted those proceedings contending that out of the sale proceeds of 40,000-00 dollars he had to necessarily expend a sum of 7,000 dollars to his advocate at Singapore and 20,000 doll....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Bank of India. But what the learned Counsel contends is that as the contravention has taken place only because the appellant was not aware of the requirement of permission of the Reserve Bank of India for the disbursements made to parties in Singapore out of the sale proceeds, the contravention of Section 5(1)(a) cannot be taken serious note of. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that the order of the Appellate Board, proceeds on the basis that the appellant has committed only a technical violation of Section 5(1)(a) and that for such a technical violation the penalty of Rs. 10,000 even as reduced by the Appellate Board is not justified. The learned Counsel for the appellant also contends that the expenditure of 11,000 dollars ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nvoked. Further, the learned I counsel for the appellant would say that the violation of Section 5(1)(a) in this case is merely technical and if the appellant had applied for permission of the Reserve Bank it would have been automatically granted, and in support of that submission the learned Counsel refers to the observation of the Appellate Board that 'had the appellant applied to the Reserve Bank for permission, such permission was likely to be granted'. But we are not inclined to share that view. If the appellant had applied to the Reserve Bank for permission, the Reserve Bank would have naturally caused an enquiry to be made and it would have granted the permission only if it was satisfied about the genuine need for the payment....